GAME BYTES: Games grow; with them, critics

By Phil OwenSpecial to Tusk

Published: Friday, January 17, 2014 at 3:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 8:02 p.m.

If there is any one thing I can point to that truly describes the fledgling nature of the games industry, it’s our point-and-click approach to criticism. For many games critics, writeups are not about examining the whole of a product and how the individual pieces fit in it, but only the individual pieces out of context.

A game is bad because of a buggy mechanic, or it’s good because the act of putting a bullet through a digital character’s skull is smooth as can be. The package doesn’t matter.

That approach is made all the more evident in preview features, for which journalists play or watch someone play a short section of a game and then write about the experience. We feel entitled to authoritatively judge those pieces without even knowing the actual context provided by the full game, and thus sometimes we look like churchgoers picketing outside screenings of “The Last Temptation of Christ.” I appreciate the sentiment, but judging the merits of a portion of art outside its context is not critically valid.

But whereas people objecting to that well-known Scorcese film without watching it were mostly not professional critics — and thus to be forgiven for not doing their due diligence before making a value judgment — this sort of thing happens far too often among my games journalist peers, and rarely does anyone make note of that being the wrong way to do this job.

You can’t, for one thing, assume you know what the greater context is if it’s your job to critically evaluate games. And if a producer tells you the expressed purpose of an upsetting scene or sequence is to upset you, then you must not reject that notion without viewing the context and then deciding if the shock value is appropriate.

This is immensely frustrating for me, because many of these manufactured controversies are the result of idealistic leftists — or “social justice warriors,” as the opposition mockingly call them — who I agree with politically and socially on most topics. But when the loud voices on what is ostensibly my side of the social divide call for certain types of content to be avoided in all cases regardless of intent or artistic merit (unless, I would assume, someone from this group makes a game of his or her own with that sort of content), then I internally weep for my profession.

And then I remind myself that even though video gaming is a 40-plus year-old establishment, it’s still an adolescent. And when I view the critical establishment we have now, in contrast with what we had 20 years ago, the improvements are clear. Thus, I’m not despairing and wondering what I’m doing. I just look at this as a reminder that we aren’t as far along as we pretend we are, either as an artistic medium, or as journalists who cover it.

I took a chance getting into the games scene in the first place because I wanted to guide the conversation in the space as much as possible. A haughty, arrogant attitude, yes, but this industry still being in its fast-growing years is exactly the spot for that. Maybe my voice is not the one it needs, but while I’m trying to make a living I just have to do what I can to help the industry progress. Being in the growth phase means trying new approaches is often welcomed, a necessary part of progress.

We’re all just trying to find our places still, which is dangerous but fun. Things are moving, and more mindsets are being represented, and we’re on our way. Maybe I’ll be dead before we “arrive,” but that’s OK. The journey is the best part.

Phil Owen is a freelance video game critic and columnist.

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.